Where do organized pseudoskeptic groups like JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer get their funding from? Is it revealed on their websites? I can't imagine it all comes from donations. Something in the establishment that needs a propagandist posing as a "skeptic" must be funding them right? Otherwise, why else would they always defend the establishment view?

They appear to have a vested interest. Why are they only skeptical of anything that opposes authority, while NEVER skeptical of anything the establishment says but taking it all on faith? That doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with skepticism, which means to question things rather than take them on faith.

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]"

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Kevin Ryan, a 9/11 truther who was fired when he blew the whistle on NIST using fraudulent methods in their testing, debated Michael Shermer and realized the same thing. He writes in his blog about Shermer's behavior during their debate:

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.....................My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”...............It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Knowing his track record ( distrusting authoritative source he doesn't agree with ) and actually finding the truth of a matter wouldn't work for him. But perhaps he will look up their public records and surprise us.

Scepcop wrote:Where do organized pseudoskeptic groups like JREF, CSICOP and Michael Shermer get their funding from? Is it revealed on their websites? I can't imagine it all comes from donations. Something in the establishment that needs a propagandist posing as a "skeptic" must be funding them right? Otherwise, why else would they always defend the establishment view?

They appear to have a vested interest. Why are they only skeptical of anything that opposes authority, while NEVER skeptical of anything the establishment says but taking it all on faith? That doesn't make sense. This has nothing to do with skepticism, which means to question things rather than take them on faith.

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic"In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]"

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Kevin Ryan, a 9/11 truther who was fired when he blew the whistle on NIST using fraudulent methods in their testing, debated Michael Shermer and realized the same thing. He writes in his blog about Shermer's behavior during their debate:

"Additionally, my opponent’s performance showed that he is not what most people would call a skeptic, at least not in matters that are important to people. I had suspected this myself, and had to check the definition of skepticism to be sure. What I found was that skepticism is about questioning claims that are generally accepted, or are given by supposedly authoritative sources. Skeptics are not people who simply take contradictory positions without regard for evidence, however, and after rational discussion skeptics usually agree with the case that best fits the evidence.....................My opponent was clearly not skeptical of any of the claims made by the only authoritative source on the topic, the U.S. government. He had no response when I asked how each and every member of the U.S. chain of command could have been indisposed for just those two hours on September 11th, or how al Qaeda could have been behind the effective stand-down of the nation’s air defenses during that time. He could not say why the 9/11 Commission left so many of the most important facts out of their report, or what it meant for US government scientists to finally admit that they could not explain the “collapse” of the Twin Towers. His final plea was that we just accept that al Qaeda did it because they said they did it, and we should take them at their word.

This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”...............It is only on this absurd playing field that we can possibly accept Michael Shermer as an exemplary skeptic. His Skeptics Society is not skeptical of authoritative claims that affect the lives of average people, like 9/11 or electronic voting machines or corporate media consolidation. Instead, Shermer and his group are skeptical of random non-authoritative claims, like those about UFOs, or the belief in God. It seems possible that his skepticism has more to do with supporting business interests than it has to do with reason."

Winston, don't you know that Shermer is a specialist in claims of the paranormal that's what matter's to him. There a many other people that are critical of the things you want Shermer to be critical of. There are many watchdog people or organizations. I ask you, why aren't you critical of things like electronic voting, etc. You are no different than Shermer, you only post topics that are of interest to you.

Reply to the underlined. You miss the point of your own position. No skeptic would ever say don't question the official government position. The problem people like myself have with people like you is the quality of the evidence you bring for examination all of which is easily refuted and replaced by more reasonable explanatory evidence. The quality of your evidence does not stack up to the claims you make.

That is a good topic, for the US. I had amassed at least half a dozen examples of different ways the vote might have been rigged in the two Dubya elections. Australia uses a much simpler system that is efficient and yet requires a 100% voter turnout -- printed rolls in each area, marked off by hand in a computer readable column, and a true secret ballot, i.e. no-one knows a voter's intention at any stage, unlike the bizarre US registration system. Paper votes are counted in each polling station with scrutineers from any and all candidates and their parties. The roll system is only used pretty much to find who didn't vote, for which there is a $50 fine. There are perhaps as many as a million potential voters who remain unregistered however who are eligible and required to register. Donkey votes or unfilled/spoiled ballot papers in some wards appeared as high as 18% in the last local council elections in one state.

Mandatory voting does not change the method above -- voluntary voting would in fact reduce the workload to perhaps 50-60% of the mandatory system. However, the irony is that regardless of the fairness and transparency of this system, characters like John Howard still get elected, and the two party preferred Westminster system goes unreformed. A major necessary reform is removing the one seat-one electorate system which tends to arrive at a two party dominant model.

really? wrote:Winston, don't you know that Shermer is a specialist in claims of the paranormal that's what matter's to him. There a many other people that are critical of the things you want Shermer to be critical of. There are many watchdog people or organizations. I ask you, why aren't you critical of things like electronic voting, etc. You are no different than Shermer, you only post topics that are of interest to you.

Reply to the underlined. You miss the point of your own position. No skeptic would ever say don't question the official government position. The problem people like myself have with people like you is the quality of the evidence you bring for examination all of which is easily refuted and replaced by more reasonable explanatory evidence. The quality of your evidence does not stack up to the claims you make.

Of course I'm critical of electronic voting, because it can be easily manipulated and controlled. Shermer isn't, because he doesn't want you to question anything official. We've already established that. He's not a truth seeker. He has a vested interest in defending establishment. Since when has he ever been skeptical of anything official? Never!

Sure, skeptics would say that you can question the official government position, but that you must not conclude any conspiracies, because the official government position is always the right one. For example, Shermer may say that it is ok to question the official version of the JFK assassination or 9/11, but that you must end up agreeing with the official version, because the official version is Gospel Truth, no conspiracies exist and no cover up exists, because those things are false by default. In other words, if the government lies and falsifies data (e.g. the single bullet theory) then you are to take it as fact. Any notion of cover up, even if true, are to be rejected as fantasy.

That's the skeptic modus operandi. It's highly deceptive and a form of mind control, and technically false as well.

Let me ask you something: Suppose I had you killed and made it look like a suicide and ordered the police not to investigate it and simply rule it as a suicide. Thus officially, you committed suicide. Does that then become the truth in your skeptic philosophy, since the official version of everything is always the truth?

This question will create an internal contradiction in your skeptic programming, kind of like the logical contradictions that destroyed the androids in the Star Trek Episode "I, Mudd". Skeptics don't follow the evidence, they follow their programming - which is to defend the official version of things.

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

There's no internal contradiction since your entire post is a strawman - but I'm not going to waste the time going over it line by line because I've done so multiple times in the past and you've never even acknowledged the posts.

I told you before, this is not about belief. This is about what the evidence points to. All the evidence points to 9/11 being a false flag event, and an inside job, carried out to serve as a pretext for the Iraq War, American dominance in the Middle East for control of oil, and as an excuse to take our freedoms away and squash dissent. The results of 9/11 reveal the intentions. All this is very obvious. Even you know that. But your job of course is disinfo, not truth.

I was much more optimistic about America during the Clinton years. If only Al Gore had won that election afterward. Then all this might not have happened.

"This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”."

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Scepcop wrote:I told you before, this is not about belief. This is about what the evidence points to. All the evidence points to 9/11 being a false flag event, and an inside job, carried out to serve as a pretext for the Iraq War, American dominance in the Middle East for control of oil, and as an excuse to take our freedoms away and squash dissent. The results of 9/11 reveal the intentions. All this is very obvious. Even you know that. But your job of course is disinfo, not truth.

I was much more optimistic about America during the Clinton years. If only Al Gore had won that election afterward. Then all this might not have happened.

"This strange approach to skepticism is a good example of the growing attempt by some government and corporate media representatives (Shermer also works for FOX TV) to convince us to believe the opposite of what we see and hear. We’re told that the best way to stop terrorism is to start endless wars in the Middle East, and the best way to protect our freedoms is to give up our freedoms. We’re also led to believe, paradoxically, that anyone who questions the government’s conspiracy theory is a “conspiracy theorist”."

Deny until your blue in the face. Scepcop, this is about your core beliefs. Everything you just wrote above clearly illustrates some of your beliefs. I got to add something here in response to the bold. The truth is smacking you right in the face. It's you that's supplying disinformation not us skeptics. Here is a further example.

Forensic experts say Paul McCartney was replaced in 1966?I heard that recently two Italian forensic experts announced in Wired magazine that based on photo and voice analysis, there is a high probability that the Paul McCartney before 1966 and after are different people, meaning that he was replaced by a double. Here is an article about it in English. What do you think? Is it possible the world was duped?

I also heard that several of McCartney's ex girlfriends before 1966 claim that the Paul after 1966 is not the same man they dated.In the David Icke forum, there is a huge mega thread about this topic.